I feel a lot of sympathy for this view.  I think all of us feel doubts
from time to time.  I can't make your decisions for you.  However I do
have some comments that you may (or may not) find helpful.

First, a lot of intellectual problems with Christianity are caused by
trying to defend the indefensible.  The fundamentalists have managed
to convince a lot of people that in order to be Christian you have to
be a Creationist.  This is based on a view of Biblical authority that
I find completely unconvincing, for both Biblical and theological
reasons.  I do place a high value on the authority of the Bible, but
primarily as a *witness* to God's acts of revelation, not as itself a
separate revelation.  I believe it is in general a reliable document.
A lot of doubts about it come from speculative literary analysis that
I have problems with.  It is somewhat interesting that archaeologists
-- who you'd expect would have the best objective tests -- generally
evaluate the accuracy of the Bible as being higher than those who use
strictly literary methods.  On the other hand, it is still a human
document, and I see no reason to think that its authors have any sort
of supernatural guarantee of accuracy.  There's a whole list of
"problem passages".  Many of the problems go away when you understand
the historical background or fix up translations.  But there are still
lots of pretty clear disagreements.  Ones that I happen to remember
are the number of people (or angels) at the empty tomb, the two
geneologies of Jesus, disagreements in numbers all over the place
(e.g. the census as reported in I Ch 21 and 2 Sam 24), etc.
Inerrantists propose resolutions for most of these, of varying degrees
of plausibility.  But at some point it becomes more convincing simply
to admit that we have the same kind of variations we have in any human
accounts.

I don't understand why this creates such a problem for people.  God is
willing to let his Son be crucified, to commit the success of his
mission to the somewhat uncertain efforts of the Church, and yet
people find it inconceivable that he allows accounts of his actions to
be handled by fallible humans.

I think this is all tied up with the search for guaranteed answers.
It seems like many Christians want to believe they are on the one,
guaranteed true path to God.  Before the Reformation, the Church was
expected to provide guaranteed answers.  For Protestants, this has
been replaced by the Bible.  I just don't see it.  I think our unity
is in Christ, not in having a single guaranteed set of doctrines or
even morals.  I don't see either Christ or the rest of the NT
promising Christians assured answers.  Paul spent much of his time
trying to get varied groups to respect each other.  There are a lot of
genuinely difficult questions.  You see them on soc.religion.christian
and talk.religion.misc all the time: What is the state of the soul
after death?  What parts of the OT Law are Christians expected to
keep?  It's probably a good sign that Christians are concerned about
issues like this.  We are called on to live as God would have us live.
But if God intended to give precise answers of this sort, he set about
it in a singularly incompetent way.  I happen to think that he did
not.  While it's always dangerous to speculate on God's motivations, I
can suggest an obvious one.  I believe by the Reformation people had
to some extent replaced faith in Christ with faith in the Church.
Something similar can happen to Protestants as well.  By not allowing
a single definitive theology, we avoid replacing a personal commitment
to Christ by a commitment to a set of doctrines.

My own approach, for what it's worth, is a radical one.  I follow Paul
(or what I believe Paul said) in rejecting any kind of Law for
Christians.  I believe we have to base Christian ethics on basic
Christian principles such as love of our neighbor and fidelity to our
commitments, and not on specific laws.  Most particularly, I think
Paul's letters are to be taken as attempts to carry out the program in
his circumstances.  But they do not establish laws for us.  I find it
quite ironic that the great enemy of the Law has Christians hanging on
his every opinion as if they were a new set of commandments.  However
I recognize that there are Christians who feel they need specific
rules.  I can only respect their keeping of the Sabbath, etc., as
their way of honoring God.

There are a number of serious problems which have caused Christians
untold anguish.  Some of them I consider unnecessary.  Others are
harder, but I believe we have at least good grounds for hope.  Let's
look at a few specific issues:

1) Evolution.  Although I regard the Bible as generally accurate, I
find it hard to take the early parts of Gen. as serious history.
Among other things, Gen 1 and 2 seem to be separate, mutually
incompatible, accounts of creation.  Given the great similarity of the
creation accounts, the flood story, etc., to general Mesopotamian
mythology, I think it's pretty easy to guess what happened: The
Israelite records and historical traditions would only have gone back
so far.  After all, before the call to Abraham the Hebrews didn't even
exist as a separate people.  For earlier history, and creation
stories, it is natural that the Hebrews would have used the same
traditions as the people they came out of.  In fact I see the two
creation accounts as a sign that the editor of Gen. knew what was
going on: He provided us two different accounts because he knew there
was no single agreed-on history going back to the creation.

2) Changes in ethical standards.  If all you had were the first few
books of the OT, you would conclude that God was a war god, who wanted
his people to kill everybody else.  Yet the NT is nearly pacifist, and
Christians now consider it immoral to kill people just because they
have a different religion.  I don't see anything wrong with admitting
frankly that ideas in this area have changed, and that there are parts
of the OT that would now be considered immoral.  It's obvious that in
early times many people thought God was telling them to kill all of
their opponents.  It may be that they misunderstood him.  E.g.  that
they could conceive of no other way to implement his demand that they
separate themselves from idolatry.  Or it may be that God raised his
standards as people became capable of understanding his purposes
better.  Or some combination of the two.  But I am appalled by the
discussions in talk.religion.misc trying to justify why whole
populations deserved to be killed.  I believe what we should see in
the OT is how God, through the Prophets and other inspired leaders,
led his people out of the tribal mentality into the concept of his
people as a "light to the Gentiles".

3) How can God intend to torture most of humanity forever?  I think
the simple answer is that he doesn't.  The exact details of what will
happen to people in the Judgement seem rather obscure in the Bible.
Anyone who has been reading talk.religion.misc or
soc.religion.christian will know various people believe in

  - eternal punishment of all non-Christians
  - a second death for those who are not saved (i.e. that they cease
	to exist after the judgement)
  - that God will find a way to save everyone

There is some evidence for each of these, though the third one is
certainly the hardest to justify.  I am not going to try to sell any
specific view here.  But there are some that I'm quite convinced are
not acceptable.  The clearest is the idea that God decided before the
foundation of the earth that he was going to damn 90% of the human
race.  While apparently based on some statements of Paul's in Romans,
this view turns Paul's argument on its head.  Paul is talking about
God holding back on salvation of the Jews so as to include the
Gentiles.  He's not talking about damning anyone. He's talking about
God's plan to save everyone.  (I'm not giving a specific citation
because you really need to read pretty much all of Romans to see the
argument as a whole.)

I frankly do not have any completely coherent view that makes sense of
everything said in the NT.  But I do believe God's intention towards
all people is good.  While Christ certainly speaks of God judging
people, and of a narrow gate (Lk 13:22), he also assures us that while
salvation may appear impossible from a human perspective, for God
everything is possible (Mk 10:27).  I also note that both the passage
in Luke and Mark end by saying "Then those who are now last will be
first, and those who are now first will be last."  Which is somewhat
different from eternal punishment.

But while I do not know exactly what God will do (and I don't think
anyone does), I think we do know enough to guide us in our Christian
life:

  - we know we are supposed to tell the Good News to everyone.

  - there is no need to reject spiritual insight when it
	is present in other religions.  In Rom 2 and elsewhere,
	Paul tells us that God can make himself known to
	others in their hearts.  That doesn't mean that we
	regard all religions as "equally true", just that it
	is possible for God to reveal himself to people in spite
	of their errors, something which is at times useful
	for Christians as well...

  - we know we are not supposed to judge anyone.  There has been
	some debate on this, as there are other places that say
	that the Church is to use judgement to maintain its
	own purity.  But as Paul says, this is simply a matter
	of maintaining our own standards.  Judging outsiders is
	God's business. (I Cor 5:12-13)  That doesn't mean that
	we cease to tell people about Christ, just that we 
	understand that we don't know everything that God is
	doing with them.

  - we trust God when he says that he loves everyone, and believe
	that he will find a way to reconcile mercy and justice.
	The Prophets could see signs that God would send
	a Messiah to deal with his people's sin.  But they 
	certainly didn't anticipate in any detail Christ's
	death and resurrection.  Similarly, we can see some aspects
	of God's approach to humanity, but his final actions may
	well take some form that we cannot now foresee.